A large-scale nationwide study called Perception of Integrity in Local Self-Government Bodies has revealed how ready communities are to trust anti-corruption mechanisms and understand the importance of integrity.

The study was conducted by the “Foundation for Institutional Development” NGO in partnership with the Ministry of Communities and Territories Development of Ukraine, the National Agency on Corruption Prevention, with support from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in Ukraine and with funding from the Government of Japan.

Given the critical role of local self-government bodies (LSGBs) in Ukraine’s post-war recovery process, public demand is increasing for local authorities to display integrity, transparency, and accountability. LSGBs are responsible for managing public funds, implementing reconstruction projects, and cooperating with donor partners.

The study surveyed over 8,700 respondents from all 24 regions of Ukraine. The participants included authorised officers on preventing and detecting corruption in LSGBs, heads of LSGBs, local government officials, and representatives of business and civil society in territorial communities. This approach provided a comprehensive and balanced picture of perceptions of integrity and anti-corruption efforts in communities.

How respondents understand integrity

Overall, there are no significant differences in the understanding of integrity across respondent categories. Integrity is associated with morality, honesty, decency, fairness, and adherence to ethical principles. The vast majority of those surveyed believe that integrity in LSGBs is the collective responsibility of both leadership and staff: 89.2% of authorised officers, 86.7% of LSGB employees, 80.9% of business and civil society representatives, and 89.2% of community heads agreed with this statement.

What are the main safeguards against corruption?

Respondents most often identified the personal integrity of employees (80.8%) and transparency in decision-making processes (54.5%) as key safeguards against corruption in LSGBs. Factors such as the enforcement of anti-corruption requirements (17.4%) and competitive salaries (15%) received considerably less support.

Willingness to report corruption

Regarding willingness to report corruption, only 45.5% of LSGB employees and 55.3% of public and business representatives said they would report cases of corruption if anonymity was guaranteed. Meanwhile, 42.3% of employees and 31.9% of the public said they were unsure, and another 3% of employees and 12.8% of the public said they would not report corruption at all.

Anti-corruption authorised officers: Who they are, and how they work

Currently, the majority of authorised officers on preventing and detecting corruption in LSGBs are women (72.3%). Only one third (33.8%) have more than three years of experience in the role, while 25.8% have less than one year. Some 67.1% combine their anti-corruption duties with other work within the LSGB. At the same time, 45.8% of employees do not know who the authorised anti-corruption officer in their LSGB is.

Interaction with authorised officers is also weak: 71.3% of LSGB employees and 63.8% of business and civil society representatives have never interacted with them. Some 41.3% of employees do not know what the authorised officer does, and more than 60% of the public are unaware of their work outcomes.

Awareness of legislation and signs of corruption

Knowledge of legislation is relatively high: Over 72% of respondents state they are well acquainted with the Law on Prevention of Corruption. However, only 57.4–66.7% can recognise the signs of corruption offences.

Internal communication and effectiveness of measures

Internal communications about anti-corruption measures within LSGBs requires strengthening — only 31.6% of employees are aware of such measures, while almost a third know nothing about them at all. The overall effectiveness rating of anti-corruption measures is 5 out of 10.

Main barriers for whistleblowers

Among the main barriers for whistleblowers are a lack of knowledge about possible consequences (64.9%), with only 13.2% confident that they would face no negative repercussions, and 9.9% believing that the leadership of LSGBs might dismiss them.

Recommendations for implementing integrity principles in LSGs

To effectively implement integrity principles in LSGBs, focus should be placed on several key areas:

• Creating an integrity-focused environment in territorial communities at the national level, which will serve as the foundation for further reforms.
• Developing a system of anti-corruption measures in LSGBs to ensure transparency and accountability.
• Strengthening the independence and institutional capacity of the authorised officers in LSGB as a guarantee of effective integrity oversight.
• Enhancing cooperation between LSGBs, civil society, and business by involving them in decision-making processes.
• Encouraging the activity of whistleblowers to improve transparency and accountability.
• Conducting integrity checks for candidates applying to LSGB positions to prevent appointments of individuals with corruption risks.
• Providing regular anti-corruption training to improve employee competence and strengthen anti-corruption culture within local self-government bodies.